Finance Research Letters 30 (2019) 23–29

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Finance Research Letters

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/frl

Oil price fluctuation, stock market and macroeconomic

T
fundamentals: Evidence from China before and after the financial
crisis
Yu Weia,b, , Songkun Qinb, Xiafei Lib, Sha Zhuc, Guiwu Weid
⁎

a
School of Finance, Yunnan University of Finance and Economics, Kunming, China
b
School of Economics & Management, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China
c
School of Finance, Chongqing Technology and Business University, Chongqing, China
d
School of Business, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In this paper we investigate the long-term connections between crude oil futures price and China
Oil futures price stock market across the recent financial crisis by using a nonlinear threshold cointegration
China stock market method within a multivariate framework. Three key macroeconomic fundamentals, i.e., foreign
Threshold cointegration exchange market, domestic economic development and total foreign trade volume in China are
Structural break
used to detect their functions as transmission channels between oil futures market and China
Macroeconomic transmission channel
stock market. Different from extant literature, our empirical results show that firstly oil futures
JEL classification: market has significant impacts on China stock market through both a direct way and an indirect
C22
way by the macroeconomic channels. Secondly, there are significant long-term cointegration
C52
relationships between crude oil futures price and China stock market even if two structural
Q43
breaks in this relationship are observed in March 2008 and December 2012, respectively. The
long-term connections between them vary dramatically at different market regimes, and are
enhanced greatly in recent years with the adjustments in refined oil pricing mechanism and
exchange rate regime in China. Finally, we find that, among the three macroeconomic funda-
mentals, exchange rate market plays the most significant role in transforming the impacts of oil
prices on China stock market particularly after the financial crisis.

1. Introduction

Crude oil price movements have great impacts on international stock markets. Thus identifying the effects of crude oil price on
stock market is one of the major issues in Energy Finance (Zhang, 2018). China is now the largest oil-import and second largest oil-
consumption country globally, and thus this issue is extremely important for the Chinese policy makers and investors (Zhang, 2017; Ji
and Zhang, 2019; Li and Wei, 2018). Recently, many studies concentrate on the relationships between crude oil price and stock
markets (e.g., Ji et al., 2018; Li et al., 2018; Roubaud and Arouri, 2018).
The motivations and contributions of this paper are threefold: firstly, most extant literature on China topics usually models
directly the connections between oil market and stock market without considering the possible transmission channels by macro-
economic fundamentals (see Li et al., 2018 and many others). Secondly, the majority of empirical studies on this topic commonly

⁎
Corresponding author to: School of Finance, Yunnan University of Finance and Economics, 237 Longquan Road, Kunming, 650221 Yunnan,
China.
E-mail address: weiyusy@126.com (Y. Wei).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2019.03.028
Received 8 January 2019; Received in revised form 20 February 2019; Accepted 20 March 2019
Available online 21 March 2019
1544-6123/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Y. Wei, et al. Finance Research Letters 30 (2019) 23–29

Table 1
Results for various unit root tests.
Test equation includes Variables ADF PP NP Results

Level
Intercept Loil 2.185 −2.213 −6.232* Nonstationary
LStock −2.077 −2.523 −1.517 Nonstationary
Lex −1.519 −1.685 −0.204 Nonstationary
Lindu −2.627* −1.078 0.702 Nonstationary
Ltra −2.154 −2.340 0.500 Nonstationary
Intercept & trend Loil −2.478 −2.533 −7.688 Nonstationary
LStock −1.984 −2.455 −3.913 Nonstationary
Lex −0.761 −0.719 −3.725 Nonstationary
Lindu −0.581 −2.193 −5.050 Nonstationary
Ltra −1.886 −2.397 −3.011 Nonstationary
First difference
Intercept ΔLoil −10.122*** −10.167*** −35.280*** Stationary
ΔLStock −10.778*** −11.207*** −11.699** Stationary
ΔLex −9.006*** −9.171*** −25.788*** Stationary
ΔLindu −2.207 −22.553*** 0.273 Stationary
ΔLtra −18.473*** −18.597*** −4.972 Stationary
Intercept & trend ΔLoil −10.104*** −10.151*** −71.101*** Stationary
ΔLStock −10.766*** −11.186*** −74.116*** Stationary
ΔLex −9.118*** −9.078*** −67.241*** Stationary
ΔLindu −3.395* −27.308*** 0.035 Stationary
ΔLtra −18.582*** −18.582*** −20.171** Stationary

Notes: ADF is the augmented Dickey–Fuller unit root test. PP is the Phillips–Perron unit root test. NP denotes for the Ng-Perron test. *, ** and ***
indicate significance at 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively.

decide the burst time of financial crisis exogenously as the time point of collapse in Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (Lei et al., 2018; Li
and Wei, 2018; Wen et al., 2012; Zhang and Broadstock, 2018), which may not be accurate or suitable for the economic fundamentals
of a specific country. Finally, although several studies already consider the transmission effect of macroeconomic fundamentals on
the relationship of oil and stock market, they only focus on one of the possible channels, such as interest rate documented in
Bondia et al. (2016) and exchange rate by Roubaud and Arouri (2018). We, however, think that the impacts of oil price fluctuations
on stock markets can be transferred indirectly through many macroeconomic channels, i.e., exchange rate movements, domestic
economy development and international trade. Therefore, in this paper, we try to investigate the long-term connections between
crude oil price and China stock market by using a nonlinear threshold cointegration method within a multivariate framework. This
framework can not only take into account the comprehensive effects of three macroeconomic variables on oil-stock relationship in
China, but can decide the structural breaks in this relationship endogenously to get more reliable conclusions in the specific back-
ground of China, especially before and after the recent global financial crisis.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the data and Section 3 introduces the threshold cointegration methodology.
The empirical results are discussed in Section 4. Finally Section 5 concludes.

2. Data

In this paper, we use monthly Shanghai Stock Exchange Composite index (SSEC) and Brent crude oil futures price traded in ICE as
proxies of China stock market and international crude oil price, respectively. Furthermore, three key macroeconomic fundamentals,
i.e., foreign exchange market, domestic economic development and international trade market, are taken into account to represent
the possible transmission channels of oil price impacts on China stock market. To be specific, we utilize monthly exchange rate of
RMB against U.S. dollar, industry production and total foreign trade of China to indicate the three fundamentals. The data sample
covers time period from January 2005 to December 2017. Table 1 shows the results for unit root tests on the time series of Loil,
LStock, Lex, Lindu and Ltra, which denote the natural logarithms of SSEC index, Brent crude oil futures price, exchange rate of RMB
against U.S. dollar, industry production and total foreign trade of China, respectively.
In general, Table 1 indicate that all the three unit root tests suggest a unit root in the log prices of the five variables, and they are
stationary in their first-difference forms. Thus all the five variables may be cointegrated with long-term connections.

3. Methodology

In the past two decades, cointegration test has been widely used in empirical studies to examine the long-term connections among
relevant time series. One of the criticisms to conventional cointegration methodologies proposed by Engle and Granger (1987) is that
it assumes that the cointegration relationship does not change over the entire period of the empirical study, which is too unrealistic to
be true especially during long time period. In facts, economic/financial crisis, major economic policy changes, or technological
shocks may alter the structure for long-run relationship among economic/financial variables. Thus Gregory and Hansen (1996)
propose a new cointegration test, which allows for the possibility of regime shifts in the long-term cointegration relationship among

24
Y. Wei, et al. Finance Research Letters 30 (2019) 23–29

time series due to one endogenous structural break. This test is widely known as threshold cointegration test. Then Hatemi-J (2008)
further proposes an extension test of Gregory and Hansen (1996), which can incorporate two possible endogenous regime shifts in the
long-run relationship.
In this paper, we utilize the HJ method incorporating two structural breaks on both intercepts and slopes to examine the coin-
tegration relationship as:
LStockt = 0 + 1 D1t
+ 2 D2t + 01 Loilt + 11 D1t Loilt + 21 D2t Loilt
+ 02 Lex t+ 12 D1t Lext + 22 D2t Lext
+ 03 Lindut + 13 D1t Lindut + 23 D2t Lindut
+ 04 Ltrat + 14 D1t Ltrat + 24 D2t Ltrat + t , (1)

where LStock, Loil, Lex, Lindu and Ltra are the natural logarithms of monthly SSEC index, Brent crude oil futures price, exchange rate
of RMB against U.S. dollar, industry production and total foreign trade of China, respectively. α0 is the common intercept; α1 and α2
are the differential intercept over the common intercept α0 for the sub-samples decided by structural breaks, respectively. Similarly,
β0i is the common slop coefficients for the ith independent variable for i = 1, 2, 3, 4 (Loil, Lex, Lindu and Ltra) and β1i and β2i are the
differential slope coefficient over the base slope coefficient for the sub-samples decided by structural breaks, respectively. In addition,
D1t and D2t are the dummy variables representing the first endogenous structural break at time t and are defined as:

0 if t [n 1] 0 if t [n 2]
D1t and D2t ,
1 if t > [n 1] 1 if t > [n 2] (2)

where τ1 ∈ (0, 1) and τ2 ∈ (0, 1) are two unknown parameters that indicate the relative timing of structural break points in the whole
data sample with observations of n. The bracket denotes the integer part. Gregory and Hansen (1996) prove that direct applications of
three residual based tests, namely ADF (Engle and Granger, 1987), Zα and Zt (Phillips, 1987) tests on regression errors, will lead to
misspecification of cointegration if the structural breaks are unknown. Thus they propose some bias-corrected versions of ADF, Zα and
Zt tests, labeled as ADF*, Zα* and Zt*, as follows:
ADF * = inf ADF ( 1, 2 ),
( 1, 2) T (3)

Zt * = inf Zt ( 1, 2 ),
( 1, 2) T (4)

Z *= inf Z ( 1, 2 ),
( 1, 2) T (5)

where T = (0.15n, 0.85n). The idea to truncate the data by 15% on each side follows the foot-steps of Gregory and Hansen (1996)
and Hatemi-J (2008).

4. Empirical analysis

Table 2 presents the results for HJ threshold cointegration tests. We can see all the three statistics of ADF*, Zt* and Zα* sig-
nificantly reject the null hypothesis of no cointegration between crude oil price and China stock market. In addition, there are two
structural break points in the cointegration relationship locating at about 0.248 and 0.609 of the whole sample length, which
correspond to March 2008 and December 2012, respectively.
The first structural break point lies in March 2008, which is near the nominal burst of subprime mortgage crisis in September
2008 marked by the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. In fact, early in April 2007, New Century Financial, the U.S. second
largest lender of sub-prime mortgages, ran out of money and said it could no longer afford to make loans. This event had already
implied the arrival of crisis in 2008. This crisis also put great pressure on China stock market, and the Shanghai Stock Exchange
composite index (SSEC) dropped sharply from 6124 points in October 2017 to 3357 points in March 2008, and then to 1728 points in
October 2008. In terms of crude oil price, the Brent oil price, however, kept increasing from about 44 dollars per barrel in January
2005 to about 103 dollars per barrel in March 2008, and then to the highest 132 dollars per barrel on record in July 2008.

Table 2
Results for HJ threshold cointegration test.
Methods Test statistics 1% CV 5% CV 10% CV Break points 1 Break points 2

ADF* −8.390*** −8.353 −7.903 −7.705 0.248 0.609

Zt* −8.352** −8.353 −7.903 −7.705 0.248 0.609
Zα* −128.385** −140.135 −123.870 −116.169 0.248 0.609

Notes: CV denote the critical values of HJ test, which is available in Hatemi-J (2008). ** and *** indicate significance at 5% and 1% levels,
respectively.

25
Y. Wei, et al. Finance Research Letters 30 (2019) 23–29

Table 3
Estimation results for nonlinear threshold cointegration tests.
Phase I Phase II Phase III
Independent variables Jan. 2005–Feb. 2008 Mar. 2008–Nov. 2012 Dec. 2012–Dec. 2017

Intercept α0 α1 α2
−1.084 −3.959 9.146***
(5.501) (6.847) (3.040)
Loil β01 β11 β21
−0.130** 4.183*** −0.352***
(0.051) (1.211) (0.106)
Lex β02 β12 β22
−2.051*** −0.744** −8.123***
(0.429) (0.291) (1.500)
Lindu β03 β13 β23
0.372 2.575*** 0.943***
(0.621) (0.506) (0.179)
Ltra β04 β14 β24
5.855*** 0.186 1.146**
(1.139) (0.505) (0.488)

Notes: This table reports the estimation results of coefficients in Eq. (1). The numbers in parentheses are the standard errors of the estimation. *, **
and *** indicate significance at 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively.

Then the second structural break point is observed in December 2012. Near that time a very important conference for China
economic development, the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China was held in November 2012. After this
congress, many important efforts were conducted by Chinese government to stabilize China stock market, such as cancelling the new
stock IPO, expanding the credit limits of Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor (QFII) and encouraging the pension fund in China to
invest security market, etc. Based on the two endogenously determined structural break points, we divided the full sample into three
phases: Phase I is from January 2005 to February 2008 and is named as pre-crisis period; Phase II covers through March 2008 to
November 2012 and is indicated as during-crisis period; similarly, Phase III goes from December 2012 to December 2017 and can be
labeled as post-crisis period. Then we estimate the nonlinear threshold cointegration tests proposed in Hatemi-J (2008) at the three
phases, respectively.
Table 3 shows that, broadly speaking, the Brent oil futures price has significant cointegration relationship with China stock
market, even if there are two distinct structural breaks in this relationship. In addition, the three macroeconomic variables play
various roles in explaining this relationship at different phases.
To be more specific, on the one hand, before the financial crisis (Phase I) the cointegration coefficient of Brent crude oil price is
−0.130 at 5% significant level, indicating a small negative effect of oil futures price on China stock market before February 2008.
This phenomenon is easy to understand for the facts that crude oil is a major cost for industry production, and higher oil price means
higher production cost for listed companies. This coefficient, however, increases rapidly to 4.183 with a 1% significant level during
the financial crisis period (Phase II), implying that the global financial crisis imposes similar effects on both crude oil futures price
and China stock market, and causes them to crash together during the crisis period. Then during the post-crisis period (Phase III), the
cointegration coefficient between oil futures price and China stock market recovers to be a significant negative value of −0.352,
implying that with the weakening influence of financial crisis, a normal effect of crude oil price on stock market occurs after
November 2012. More importantly, the absolute values of cointegration coefficients between oil futures price and China stock market
increases substantially from 0.130 before the crisis to 0.352 after the crisis, revealing the enhancive impacts of oil price on China
stock market in recent years. These results may due to the continually upgraded refined oil pricing mechanism in China over the last
several years. For examples, since November 2001 the Chinese government began to price domestic refined oil according to the
weighted average of crude oil prices traded in Singapore, Rotterdam and New York. And then, in 2006 the refined oil price was
changed to anchor the weighted average of crude oil prices traded in Brent, Dubai and Minas. However, during the financial crisis,
the heavily fluctuated oil prices seriously disturbed the linkage between crude oil price and the Chinese refined oil price. Therefore,
in November 2008 the Chinese government declared to adjust the refined oil price in time according to the changing international
crude oil prices within a 22-day time window. Furthermore, in March 2013 this adjustment time window was shortened to 10 days. In
this way, we can see that in Phase III the connection between Brent oil futures price and SSEC increases greatly.
On the other hand, Table 3 further reveals that the three macroeconomic variables play different roles in explaining the coin-
tegration relationship between oil price and China stock market. Specifically, the exchange rate of RMB against U.S. dollar is the only
macroeconomic channel that can significantly transmit the indirect impacts of crude oil price to China stock market during the three
different phases. However, the industry production before the crisis (Phase I) and total foreign trade of China during the crisis (Phase
II) have no significant impacts on the long-term oil-stock cointegration relationship. More interestingly, with the decreasing effects of
financial crisis, during the post-crisis period (Phase III), all the three macroeconomic channels recover their mediator functions.
Moreover, the exchange rate seem to play a more important action with higher cointegration coefficient of −8.123 at 1% significant
level than those of industry production and total foreign trade with coefficients of 0.943 and 1.146, respectively.

26
Y. Wei, et al. Finance Research Letters 30 (2019) 23–29

Table 4
Results for HJ threshold cointegration test by using WTI oil futures price.
Methods Test statistics 1% CV 5% CV 10% CV Break points 1 Break points 2

ADF* −8.151⁎⁎ −8.353 −7.903 −7.705 0.237 0.622

Zt* −8.145⁎⁎ −8.353 −7.903 −7.705 0.237 0.622
Zα* −125.963⁎⁎ −140.135 −123.870 −116.169 0.237 0.622

Notes: CV denotes the critical value of HJ test, which is available in Hatemi-J (2008). ** indicates significance at 5% level.

5. Robustness check

5.1. Using WTI oil futures as another proxy of oil prices

In this sub-section, we use WTI crude oil futures price as another oil price proxy to re-examine the main empirical results reported
in Section 4. Tables 4 and 5 show the results of structural break test and coefficient estimations of nonlinear threshold cointegration
in Eq. (1), respectively.
Table 4 shows quite similar results to those reported in Table 2. We also find two significant structural break points in the
cointegration relationship at about 0.237 and 0.622 of the whole sample length, which correspond to January 2008 and February
2013, respectively. These two break points are very close to those identified in Table 2, which are located in March 2008 and
December 2012. This small difference is easy to understand for the reason that the Chinese refined oil price is not directly determined
by WTI oil price but anchored to Brent oil price since 2006.
According to the newly determined structural break points by WTI oil price, Table 5 further shows the estimation results of the
nonlinear threshold cointegration tests proposed in Hatemi-J (2008) before and after the crisis. Again, Table 5 presents analogous
findings to those reported in Table 3. For example, the WTI oil futures price has significant cointegration relationship with China
stock market, even if the two structural break points are not fully identical to those determined by Brent oil price. Moreover, we also
find that the exchange rate market plays the most important role, with a significant cointegration coefficient of −7.464, in trans-
forming the impacts of oil prices to China stock market particularly after the financial crisis.

5.2. Information spillovers among oil price, macroeconomic fundamentals and stock market

In this subsection, we adopt the information spillover analyzing tool developed by Diebold and Yilmaz (2009, 2012) to further
detect the roles of information transmission channels by different macroeconomic fundamentals. The key idea in this method is that
information spillover is defined and measured by the directional connectedness in a VAR system. The connectedness in a system can
be characterized through variance decompositions from a VAR approximating method (Diebold and Yilmaz, 2009, 2012). Variance
decompositions give us useful information on how much of the future uncertainty of variable i is caused by the shocks from variable j.
We can quantify how the system is interconnected by aggregation of the information in variance decompositions for all the variables
contained in this system (Diebold and Yilmaz, 2009, 2012). Let us consider a VAR(p) system containing n variables, xt = (xt,1, xt,2, ...,
xt,n) and t = 1, ..., T as
(L ) x t = t , (6)

Table 5
Estimation results for nonlinear threshold cointegration tests by using WTI crude oil price.
Phase I Phase II Phase III
Independent variables Jan. 2005–Dec. 2007 Jan. 2008–Jan. 2013 Feb. 2013–Dec. 2017

Intercept α0 α1 α2
−0.210 −3.094 5.403
(5.538) (6.881) (5.950)
Loil β01 β11 β21
−0.289** 4.345*** −0.312***
(0.144) (1.216) (0.115)
Lex β02 β12 β22
−2.116*** −0.824*** −7.464***
(0.420) (0.272) (1.518)
Lindu β03 β13 β23
−0.384 2.581*** 0.885***
(0.622) (0.506) (0.184)
Ltra β04 β14 β24
5.223*** −0.389 0.475
(1.190) (0.537) (0.502)

Notes: This table reports the estimation results of coefficients in Eq. (1). The numbers in parentheses are the standard errors of the estimation. *, **
and *** indicate significance at 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively.

27
Y. Wei, et al. Finance Research Letters 30 (2019) 23–29

where (L) xt = h h Lh is an n × n p-th order lag-polynomial and εt is white-noise signal with non-diagonal covariance matrix ∑.
Assuming that the roots of |Φ(z)| exist outside the unit circle, the VAR system has the following vector moving average form:
xt = (L ) t , (7)
where ψ(L) is an n × n infinite lag polynomial matrix of coefficients. Then we can define the generalized forecast error variance
decomposition (FEVD) as proposed in Diebold and Yilmaz (2012) as
1 H 1
kk h=0
(( h )j, k) 2
( H )j , k = H 1
,
h=0
( h h )j , j (8)
where ψh is a n × n matrix of coefficients corresponding to lag h, and σkk= (Σ)kk. (ΘH)j,k is the contribution of the kth element in the
VAR system to the variance of forecast error of the element j. Given that the total effect do not necessary to add up to one within
columns by definition in generalized VAR process of FEVDs, thus the standard effects of this contribution can be calculated as:

( ˜ H )j , k = ( H )j, k / ( H )j , k . (9)
k

The connectedness measurement is then defined as the share of variance in the forecasts contributed by other than own errors, or
as the proportion of the sum of the off-diagonal elements to sum of the whole matrix:

j k
( ˜ H )j, k Tr {( ˜ H )}
CH = 100 × = 100 1 ,
( ˜ H )j, k ( ˜ H )j , k (10)
where Tr{ • } is the trace operator. Thus the connectedness is the relative contribution to the forecast variance from other elements in
the VAR system. In this way, CH can be used to measure the information spillover of the whole system. In addition, we can also
calculate the directional connectedness (information spillover) received by element j from all other elements k and vice-versa. Then the
net directional connectedness (net information spillover) for element j can be defined as the difference between the total information
spillover it contributes to other elements and that it receives from others. Tables 6 and 7 report the overall information spillover and
net-pairwise spillover in this system, respectively.
Table 6 shows that, with respect to information contribution (indicated by TO in the last row of Table 6), the crude oil futures
market offers the largest proportion of 4.84 percent, while the industry production contributes the smallest share with only 0.94
percent. In addition, in terms of information receiving (indicated by FROM in the last column of Table 6), we find that international
trade market gets the largest information spillover of about 3.4 percent, and crude oil futures market receives the smallest one of 0.89
percent. These results indicate that oil futures price is indeed the major information transmitter and international trade market seems
to be the major information receiver in this VAR system.
Furthermore, to re-examine the roles of three macroeconomic fundamentals as transmission channels between oil futures market
and China stock market, we calculate the net-pairwise information spillover shown in Table 7. We can see that among the three
fundamentals, exchange rate market have positive information spillovers to international trade and industry production as 0.04 and
1.5 percent, respectively. This result indicates that exchange rate market dominates the other two fundamentals as a major in-
formation transmission channels between oil futures market and China stock market, as shown in Section 4. In addition, the positive
net-pairwise information spillover of 0.19 percent in “Trade-Industry” shows that industry production seems to be a weak bridge to
connect the oil futures market and China stock market. In general, all the robustness checks in Section 5 further verify the main
conclusions made in Section 4.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, the impacts of crude oil futures prices on China's stock market are investigated by considering the transmission
channels of macroeconomic fundamentals in China before and after the recent financial crisis. The empirical results reveal that the
exchange rate of RMB against U.S. dollar is the most important factor to transmit the indirect effects of oil price on China stock
market throughout the whole financial crisis periods. Our findings suggest that policy makers and investors should pay close at-
tentions to the fluctuations in exchange rate markets along with the oil prices to avoid large oil market risk possibly transmitting to
China stock market.

Table 6
Overall information spillover.
Stock Oil Exchange Industry Trade FROM

Stock 87.38 7.66 2.37 1.48 1.12 2.52

Oil 2.86 95.53 0.72 0.43 0.46 0.89
Exchange 3.90 1.97 83.99 1.18 8.97 3.20
Industry 5.58 1.90 1.49 1.62 89.42 2.12
Trade 0.83 12.66 0.99 82.98 2.54 3.40
TO 2.63 4.84 1.11 0.94 2.62 12.14

Note: Bold number indicates the largest share of information spillover one market contributes (TO) or receives (FROM).

28
Y. Wei, et al. Finance Research Letters 30 (2019) 23–29

Table 7
Net-pairwise information spillover.
Stock-oil Stock-exchange Stock-trade Stock-industry Oil-exchange

0.96 −0.31 0.13 −0.89 −0.25

Oil-trade Oil-industry Exchange-trade Exchange-industry Trade-industry
−2.45 −0.29 0.04 1.50 0.19

Note: Bold numbers indicate the net-pairwise information spillovers among three macroeconomic fundamentals.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71371157, 71671145),
the humanities and social science fund of ministry of education of China (17YJA790015, 17XJA790002, 18YJC790132,
18XJA790002), the scientific and technological projects of Chongqing education commission (KJ1500618), Projects for key la-
boratory of service computing and safety management of Yunnan provincial universities.

Supplementary materials

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.frl.2019.03.028.

References

Bondia, R., Ghosh, S., Kanjilal, K., 2016. International crude oil prices and the stock prices of clean energy and technology companies: evidence from non-linear
cointegration tests with unknown structural breaks. Energy 101, 558–565.
Diebold, F.X., Yilmaz, K., 2009. Measuring financial asset return and volatility spillovers, with application to global equity markets. Econ. J. 119, 158–171.
Diebold, F.X., Yilmaz, K., 2012. Better to give than receive: predictive directional measurement of volatility spillovers. Int. J. Forecast. 28 (1), 57–66.
Engle, R.F., Granger, C.W.J., 1987. Co-integration and error-correction: representation, estimation and testing. Econometrica 55, 251–276.
Gregory, A.W., Hansen, B.E., 1996. Tests for cointegration in models with regime and trend shifts. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 58, 555–560.
Hatemi-J, A., 2008. Tests for cointegration with two unknown regime shifts with an application to financial market integration. Empir. Econ. 35 (3), 497–505.
Ji, Q., Liu, B., Zhao, W., Fan, Y., 2018. Modelling dynamic dependence and risk spillover between all oil price shocks and stock market returns in the BRICS. Int. Rev.
Finan. Anal forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2018.08.002.
Ji, Q., Zhang, D., 2019. China's crude oil futures: introduction and some stylized facts. Finance Res. Lett. 28, 376–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.06.005.
Lei, L., Shang, Y., Chen, Y., Wei, Y., 2018. Does the financial crisis change the economic risk perception of crude oil traders? A MIDAS Quantile Regression Approach.
Finance Res. Lett forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.10.016.
Li, P., Zhang, Z., Yang, T., Zeng, Q., 2018. The relationship among China's fuel oil spot, futures and stock markets. Finance Res. Lett. 24, 151–162.
Li, X., Wei, Y., 2018. The dependence and risk spillover between crude oil market and China stock market: new evidence from a variational mode decomposition-based
copula method. Energy Econ. 74, 565–581.
Phillips, P.C.B., 1987. Time series regression with unit roots. Econometrica 55, 277–301.
Roubaud, D., Arouri, M., 2018. Oil prices, exchange rates and stock markets under uncertainty and regime-switching. Finance Res. Lett. 27, 28–33. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.frl.2018.02.032.
Wen, X., Wei, Y., Huang, D., 2012. Measuring contagion between energy market and stock market during financial crisis: a copula approach. Energy Econ. 34 (5),
1435–1446.
Zhang, D., 2017. Oil shocks and stock markets revisited: measuring connectedness from a global perspective. Energy Econ. 62, 323–333.
Zhang, D., 2018. Energy finance: background, concept and recent developments. Emerg. Mark. Finance Trade 54 (8), 1687–1692.
Zhang, D., Broadstock, D., 2018. Global financial crisis and rising connectedness in the international commodity markets. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal forthcoming. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2018.08.003.

29